From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63C445DAF; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:13:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C584278C; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:13:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B002A4278A for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:13:32 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1732641212; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8T+yeHV0OVNqhkqATv4aNQ2Rim1jRWR+H6nZnsZf/XY=; b=R5zxugbXBmXezUTb7ZmnOQfcMWrg/NmH3hPyHODEU+QrWCLjKSMhoEXcyFRQOw1VTqhovt PNK9Bws+e93tn3RghaOUt4cogEmV+KAml/GzOWfMfKW5swbrKOLejWOoQXVgbqV+jorH/+ HoW35DOwEJGnaXCMAv5u16+Zi3SYXYM= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-477-Y9cAKHOrMCKFqPyDq8SzLg-1; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:13:30 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Y9cAKHOrMCKFqPyDq8SzLg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: Y9cAKHOrMCKFqPyDq8SzLg Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA7A1955F42; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTRH0061144 (unknown [10.22.66.124]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 313F41956054; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:13:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org, msantana@redhat.com, stable@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , Tyler Retzlaff , Michael Santana , David Marchand Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/9] test/eal: fix core check in c flag test In-Reply-To: <20241121182443.68025-8-stephen@networkplumber.org> (Stephen Hemminger's message of "Thu, 21 Nov 2024 10:23:28 -0800") References: <20241114001403.147609-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20241121182443.68025-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20241121182443.68025-8-stephen@networkplumber.org> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:13:24 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: kqKBMq4BUXeHz9oTXd5SvZ4sKbRvKT-8BHmthEDgfac_1732641209 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Stephen Hemminger writes: > The expression for checking which lcore is enabled for 0-7 > was wrong (missing case for 6). > > Link: https://pvs-studio.com/en/blog/posts/cpp/1179/ > > Fixes: b0209034f2bb ("test/eal: check number of cores before running subtests") > Cc: msantana@redhat.com > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson > --- Acked-by: Aaron Conole > app/test/test_eal_flags.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/app/test/test_eal_flags.c b/app/test/test_eal_flags.c > index d37d6b8627..e32f83d3c8 100644 > --- a/app/test/test_eal_flags.c > +++ b/app/test/test_eal_flags.c > @@ -677,8 +677,8 @@ test_missing_c_flag(void) > > if (rte_lcore_is_enabled(0) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(1) && > rte_lcore_is_enabled(2) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(3) && > - rte_lcore_is_enabled(3) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(5) && > - rte_lcore_is_enabled(4) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(7) && > + rte_lcore_is_enabled(4) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(5) && > + rte_lcore_is_enabled(6) && rte_lcore_is_enabled(7) && > launch_proc(argv29) != 0) { > printf("Error - " > "process did not run ok with valid corelist value\n");